Since McDonald came out, I've seen a lot of the same questions over and over, and I thought I'd put together a little FAQ about the status of California laws after McDonald and what Calguns Foundation and other groups are doing to protect our Second Amendment rights. If you have further questions that aren't on this list, just ask away in the thread. If I can answer it, and it belongs here, I'll add it to the list.

Some of this post deals with ongoing litigation. This information was last brought up to date on May 13, 2011. The latest status on the items CGF is responsible for can generally be found at the Calguns Foundation Wiki:

The focus of this post is not to give a detailed overview of every single case we're working on. Rather, there seem to be a lot of questions about what is being done to challenge particular laws, and this is trying to answer those questions from the "What is being done to challenge the roster?" perspective, as opposed to the "What's the status of Peña?" perspective. I've also included cases that are being run by other individuals and organizations, but note I may not be up to speed on the latest information on these items. This post shouldn't be considered an up-to-the-minute status on anything, but a general clearinghouse for "what's being done about this particular law?"

What Was The Decision in Heller?
In Heller The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms for the primary purpose of self defense in the home. We're optimistic that future decisions will make it clear it also protects more than this, but that's the state of the law, today. Importantly, because this case was against laws in Washington, D.C., it only constrained the Federal government - not states, cities or counties.

What Was The Decision in McDonald?
In McDonald The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment also applies to the states - that states, cities and counties may not pass laws that violate the Second Amendment.

What Changes Does McDonald Cause In California Law, Today?
None. There is nothing that was illegal on June 1 that's legal today because of McDonald.
Well, Then, What's The Big Deal About McDonald If I Still Can't Buy The Gun I Want?
Courts work through a system of precedents. If a superior court says an argument is invalid, it can't be made again. Mr. Gura has been following a very clear and simple strategy to knock down the antis' arguments, one at a time.

Imagine it's 1998. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You go to court, and say, "I have a Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, this law is unconstitutional." The other side would have said, "The Second Amendment confers a collective right to the states, not to an individual, so the law is fine," and you'd lose and stay in jail.

Imagine it's now 2009. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun at the Federal level, but the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states, so the law is fine," and you'd stay in jail.

Now, it's July, 2010. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, but Heller just says you have the right to keep it in your home for self defense, and he was out walking around," and you'd stay in jail.

I know many of you are frustrated at this point, because "it never ends, we just keep filing lawsuits and keep not getting our rights back". However, the analogy has been put out that this is like a chess game, and it's a good one. You don't win a chess game on the first move. In Heller, we took their queen. In McDonald, we took a rook. As we progress, taking their capital pieces, their defense gets weaker and weaker, more vulnerable to future attacks. Let's see how the end-game might play out:

Imagine it's now 2012. Alan Gura has won his North Carolina suit. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, and he has a right to bear as well per the North Carolina case, but we have a compelling state interest in preventing people from running around in public with guns," and you'd stay in jail (though you're now at the point that you could reasonably mount a legal fight).

Imagine it's now 2013. Alan Gura (or perhaps someone else) has won a case stating that, as a right that Fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms must pass the "strict scrutiny" test. You're arrested for Loaded Open Carry. You make the same argument, and their reply is, "Well, obviously, he has an individual right to own the gun, and the Second Amendment applies that to the state of California, and he has a right to bear as well per the North Carolina case, but we have a compelling state interest in preventing people from running around in public with guns," and the judge overrules them since strict scrutiny applies, and releases you, because they are out of arguments. Your lawyer puts together a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit and recovers damages because your rights were infringed, and they train all their officers that Loaded Open Carry is legal.

But, They'll Just Come Up With More Arguments!
Doubtless they'll try something. But, from a legal perspective, every step they take, their arguments get easier to defeat and are legally weaker. We have a lot of great minds on our side that spend a lot of time trying to anticipate their next argument, and we're pretty confident what's left after we exhaust those arguments isn't going to be very persuasive.

So, How Do We Know What To Challenge, Next?
We look at the argument the other side is going to make at each point, and we bring a carefully crafted case, with sympathetic plaintiffs to attack only that argument (as much as possible - sometimes it's not possible to be that simple). Once we get to that final step - strict scrutiny for restrictions on "keep" and "bear", applied to the states - then we can unleash the great flotilla of lawsuits to challenge every single law that is causing you heartburn. Until that happens, we need to restrict what we're doing so the legal arguments we make are crisp, precise, and irrefutable.

Also, some cases are likely to be politically harder than others. The more solid precedents we have that we can cite that show that gun ownership is a fundamental right, the easier it will be to convince judges that they should allow some of the less politically favorable items to be legal.

What's This Whole "Scrutiny" Thing?
Courts have found, over the past two centuries, that there are certain restrictions of fundamental rights that are allowed. Classic examples from the First Amendment are libel, and "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Courts attempt to balance how fundamental the right is, versus how bad the restriction is, versus how important the goal of the restriction is.

In general, laws have to have a "rational basis" - which, like most legal terms, doesn't mean what your average non-lawyer would guess. In this case, it means "Can the legislature come up with some conceivable argument for why it's a good idea?"

Above that is "intermediate scrutiny", in which the government has to show that they have a compelling interest, and that the way they're achieving that is substantially related to it. For example, under intermediate scrutiny they couldn't ban the publication of all newspapers because they might contain libels.

The top level is "strict scrutiny", in which the restriction must be "narrowly tailored" and be "the least restrictive means" to achieve the government's goals. This is supposed to be applied if the right is "fundamental" to our concept of "ordered liberty" (for example, as is freedom of speech).

We don't yet know what standard of scrutiny the courts will hold gun laws up to. We do know from Heller it won't be "rational basis", so it's either "intermediate" or "strict". Obviously, we want strict, but we're optimistic most of the most onerous gun laws wouldn't stand up to "intermediate", either. One of our big strategic focuses right now is getting a case that is likely to get us "strict" scrutiny, as soon as possible. If we get that, we'll be able to challenge a lot more, more quickly. There is some reason to be optimistic that it will be "strict", based on the McDonald opinion's constant referral to the right as "fundamental".

(Continued from above)
Hey, This Alan Gura Guy Seems Pretty Good - Can We Get Him To Help Out, in California?
Alan Gura - the attorney on both Heller and McDonald - already works very closely with gun-rights organizations in California. He used to live here, and is well aware of the problems we face. Specifically, he works very closely with CGF - he's the lead attorney on Richards and Peña. Also, we coordinate broader national strategy with him - for example, if we know he's bringing a big precedent-setting case in a more friendly jurisdiction, we may hold off bringing a similar case here.

When Are We Going To Challenge The California Roster of Handguns?
We already have. The case is Peña v. Cid:

In this case we're challenging four plaintiffs' inability to purchase handguns they should be able to under Heller. This case was stayed pending an outcome in the Nordyke case. Nordyke has been sent back to the District Court. Expect us to try to get the stay lifted, soon.

When Are We Going To Get CCW?
Right now CGF has a case challenging some sheriffs' issuance policies, called Richards v. Prieto:

This is challenging Yolo County. We're challenging in this county because we think we have a better chance of prevailing there (as opposed to a more urban area). Once we win this cases, we intend to take the precedents we win there back to the bigger cities with more cases.

This case was formerly titled Sykes v. McGinness. McGinness was (at the time) Sheriff of Sacramento county. However, in November, Sacramento County announced their policy was to issue licenses for a "good cause" of "self defense," so we removed them from the lawsuit, and are continuing against Yolo county.

There is a sister case to this, challenging a similar law in Washington, D.C., also led by Alan Gura, called Palmer v. District of Columbia:

When Are We Going To Challenge The Waiting Period and/or One Handgun / Month?
We're optimistic on this one. Once we win "strict scrutiny" or even "intermediate scrutiny", we should be able to say "there's no compelling reason for this", and that case should be a winner. We'll have to wait for the scrutiny win, though (which could come from any number of current cases). Given that this case depends on a lot of other cases to win cleanly, we don't know exactly when we'll file it.

When Are We Going To Go For Loaded Open Carry?
CGF strongly supports the concept of Loaded Open Carry. Mr. Gura's recent efforts in North Carolina should clearly establish the precedent that we have a right to bear, and do so in a jurisdiction that will be a lot friendlier to us than challenging here. Also, the outcome of Richards v. Preito (and other cases) may have some impact on this, as well as whether or not the legislature bans Unloaded Open Carry. There are too many moving pieces in the predecessor cases to predict exactly when we'll file this, but know we're thinking about it, and keeping our eyes peeled for an opportunity.
When Are We Going To Challenge The Assault Weapons Ban?
This also requires a scrutiny finding that's an indeterminate amount of time in the future. Rest assured we really want to bring this case - we just want to make sure we win it when we do.
When Are We Going To Challenge the .50 Caliber Ban?
This can't stand up to strict scrutiny, especially given that .510 DTC is legal. This also depends on a lot of previous cases to win, however.

When Are We Going To Challenge on Large Capacity Magazines?
This is an interesting case, because magazines aren't firearms. This may have to wait on some more complex precedent, or take a more circular route. Again, we're very interested in doing this, we've brainstormed a number of ways to approach it, but we're not quite ready to do it, yet. The really good news here is that we have at least three possible approaches I'm aware of, and none of them preclude the others, so we can just keep swinging until we get it. Also, given everything else we've figured out how to open up in the past few years, it does seem like one of the less restrictive laws we're facing, right now.
When Am I Going To Be Able To Purchase A Gun Out of California?
Right now this is illegal under Federal law, but there seems to be no intelligent basis behind it. Mr. Gura has been working a case, Hodgkins v. Holder for a while on this, but has been stalled out through jurisdictional issues. Recently SAF has filed a new case on this matter, Lane v. D.C., which notes that there is currently no gun store in D.C., and that consequently it's not legal under Federal law to purchase a firearm there.
When Am I Going To Be Able To Buy a Machine Guns?
Probably not any time soon, and definitely not through legal challenges. Our feeling at this moment is that these are losers in the court system. Maybe after we have enough precedents under our belt, we'll think we have a shot at it, but right now the most effective things you can do to get a legal machine gun are to lobby Congress to overturn NFA, or move to a state that will let you get an NFA tax stamp.
What About Other NFA Weapons?
We think there's no rational basis for allowing (say) AR pistols but not short-barreled ARs. Our intent is to build up some better precedent before tackling this, but we might be forced to move faster than we'd like, if someone gets arrested with one and needs our help.

What About Supressors?
This falls under the same category as machine guns, right now.

When Will I Be Able To Apply For a Carry License In Other States if I'm a California Resident?
Some states ban open carry, but then do not allow out-of-state residents to apply for carry licenses. Gray Peterson is challenging this in Colorado in Peterson v. LaCabe:

What About Protecting Arms Other Than Guns?
A case in New York, Maloney v. Rice was released from stay after McDonald. It covers New York's blanket ban on the ownership of nunchaku. It's hard to say how this case will fare, but it's quite possible to be optimistic about it. If he wins it, it should help us a lot in those sorts of challenges - but, I'll note, non-gun challenges are not the core mission of the Calguns Foundation.

What Are Other Organizations Up To?
Obviously, I can't speak for them. I know various other people are mounting various other challenges, so it's possible that you'll see some of these addressed by others before we have time to fight them, ourselves. To the extent that happens, we'll be happy to lend them our knowledge and perspective - I think I speak for everyone at CGF when I say that we don't care who gets the credit, we just want our rights. I'd also like to explicitly note that many other groups out there, including, but not limited to the NRA, the CRPA and SAF are doing great work. Many of these organizations we work with, directly, and co-fund cases. This sort of parallelization allows all of us, as a movement, to do more, faster.

Thank you...very logical plan, I just hope it doesn't give the anti's any sort of advantage in building their defensive strategy.

I tried very hard not to actually say anything new in there, it's all just in one place for a change. One of my big worries in putting it together was leaking some information that would give an advantage to the other side, and I got Gene to review it with an eye towards that.

I think in general that this was our basic strategy ("break it into pieces and win each piece decisively") has been pretty obvious to people with a lot of legal experience for a while. But I was afraid to people who don't spend a lot of time in court, our decisions to go after "this law versus that law" would seem arbitrary, and was hoping I could use this to get across the idea that there actually is a plan, even if we can't tell you every single detail, yet.

Thanks for the kind words from everyone, it was my pleasure to put it together.

I would just like to say that I'm not so concerned with defeating the annoying firearm laws as the restrictive laws. The .50 BMG ban, 10 day wait and high capacity magazine bans should not be high priority fights unless they set up one of the more important cases.

I would much rather have LOC, a gutted roster of not un-safe handguns and legal mail order ammo purchases than legal .50 BMG, NICS with no wait and legal standard capacity magazines.

Eventually I want it all but first I would like to strike down the laws that don't have an easy work-around.

I'd say in general we're in agreement with you - things that have harsh punishments and can't be worked around we want to kill before we go after things that are just annoying. That said, we may sometimes go after an annoyance for one of a few reasons:

1) We have to because someone is getting wrongfully prosecuted. We at CGF always remember that our mission is to "get the charges dismissed", first, "make law" second. Our core mission is to keep law abiding Californians out of jail, and if we're forced to go after something in a sub-optimal order to save someone's skin, we will.

2) As you say above, because it might set something else up. We might have a real clear shot at a precedent through one of these, and even though it doesn't matter, if we can easily get a court to agree that we have a right to do X, we might be able to use that later.

3) It might just be easy and fun. Especially if the law is just egregious, and as we get more precedent, you might see us knock over some simple stuff simply because we can.

Also, in reply to everyone who asked: Feel free to republish elsewhere, but I'd appreciate it if you'd include a link back to the original, as I plan to keep it updated (and already have a new question I need to add).

My question is about the CA CCW law. Why if the state directs who can and cannot be issued a ccw why doesn't the state issue them. If you have 2 people who are both eligible by state law to be issued a ccw, but because one lives in San Bernardio County he is issued a ccw and the other lives in Los Angeles County is denied. Why isn't someone fighting that battle...The state issues drivers licenses and one doesn't have to shop for a "friendly" DMV (although I'm not sure there is such a thing as a friendly DMV anywhere).

I am no lawyer. So could someone explain to me why overturning the Assault Weapons Ban would need strict scrutiny?

It is no more logical than the Safe Handgun Certificate, and under intermediate scrutiny, I do not see any "compelling interest" in banning them. As the NRA and every other gun rights group has been saying since 1993, "They are functionally no different than non-banned guns."

I am no lawyer. So could someone explain to me why overturning the Assault Weapons Ban would need strict scrutiny?

It is no more logical than the Safe Handgun Certificate, and under intermediate scrutiny, I do not see any "compelling interest" in banning them. As the NRA and every other gun rights group has been saying since 1993, "They are functionally no different than non-banned guns."

I misspoke - intermediate should be fine on that, as well. What I was intending to say is that we should settle the scrutiny question, first, rather than trying to argue both of them, at once.

One questions comes to mind with Heller is what can now stop someone who is currently prohibited from owning firearms (felon, mentally unstable, drug addict, etc) from having a firearm in his/her home? Say an Officer comes to your house and finds an unloaded firearm, it seems Heller might make a valid argument - unless it somehow falls under the same example you gave of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room. Or would this now have to work its way through the courts and be challenged? The reason I said unloaded firearm is that I don't see in the Constitution that ammo is protected, just the firearm. So the government could say; "Sure, you can have a gun, just no ammo."

Another involving Peña v Cid say it comes out that "the safe handgun list" is unconstitutional and we are allowed to own and posses any handgun we wish. There would be a problem with this involving large capacity magazines, seeing as how some pistols have a standard 10+ magazine. Mostly with these case its gonna just be a domino effect a win here is gonna affect the next case after it and so on and so on.

One questions comes to mind with Heller is what can now stop someone who is currently prohibited from owning firearms (felon, mentally unstable, drug addict, etc) from having a firearm in his/her home? Say an Officer comes to your house and finds an unloaded firearm, it seems Heller might make a valid argument - unless it somehow falls under the same example you gave of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room. Or would this now have to work its way through the courts and be challenged? The reason I said unloaded firearm is that I don't see in the Constitution that ammo is protected, just the firearm. So the government could say; "Sure, you can have a gun, just no ammo."

It might depend - does that unloaded firearm have a detachable magazine? If so, is the magazine present? Because if I recall correctly, there is precedent that you can get nailed for carrying concealed if even just the magazine is hidden because it is "an integral part of the firearm" - by that same logic, no magazine = not a complete firearm = no case. Maybe. Then again they'll probably try to nail you even if it were a stripped OLL and there were no other components present whatsoever - because you're totally going to go on a murderous killing spree with an inert chunk of aluminum (constructive intent and all that). From a realistic standpoint though, I would say that it is understood by any reasonable person that ammunition is a vital and necessary component of a firearm and so should be subject to 2A protection the same as the firearm itself.
The can of worms here is that if you say restricted persons the right to keep and bear arms, what other rights that they forfeited via their poor choice of actions (or bad luck, because let's face it there are a few people who do get nailed and are innocent) do they get back? Can they vote (and likely contribute to the weakening of laws that landed them in jail in the first place), can a doctor convicted of criminal negligence resulting in death be allowed to practice again, can a child molester be allowed to work unsupervised in a daycare facility? Don't get me wrong - I believe everybody has the right to keep and bear arms for self defense but I think that the "right" way to approach the restoration of these rights has to be approached very carefully lest the law of unintended consequences bite us. If people prohibited from owning do get that right back, I would also like to see stringent rules (backed by rigorous enforcement) that would ensure that said persons wouldn't dare trying to use those weapons for extralegal purposes.

Another involving Peña v Cid say it comes out that "the safe handgun list" is unconstitutional and we are allowed to own and posses any handgun we wish. There would be a problem with this involving large capacity magazines, seeing as how some pistols have a standard 10+ magazine. Mostly with these case its gonna just be a domino effect a win here is gonna affect the next case after it and so on and so on.

Magazine capacity and the roster are two totally different issues. The issue you list above exists, now - many pistols on the roster, today, come with more than ten round magazines outside of California, and they just ship ten round magazines with the ones they ship here.

So, it would be possible to kill the roster and still not have high capacity magazines, or have high capacity magazines and still have the roster. Obviously, we want to kill the roster and have high-capacity magazines, but they're separate issues.

First of all, thanks to The Quark for all the great info. I see help in running down a rumor that I believe was previously addressed on this site. It deals with the California ban on interstate purchases of ammo, due to go into effect next year. I read somewhere that if a CA resident holds both a federal C&R FFL and a CA Certificate of Eligibility issued by the CA DOJ, that person is exempt from the mail order ban, whether or not the stupid law is constitutional. I hold both of those items and would like to either confirm or put this rumor to rest. Any help would be appreciated.

First of all, thanks to The Quark for all the great info. I see help in running down a rumor that I believe was previously addressed on this site. It deals with the California ban on interstate purchases of ammo, due to go into effect next year. I read somewhere that if a CA resident holds both a federal C&R FFL and a CA Certificate of Eligibility issued by the CA DOJ, that person is exempt from the mail order ban, whether or not the stupid law is constitutional. I hold both of those items and would like to either confirm or put this rumor to rest. Any help would be appreciated.

yes, the FTF requirement does not apply to those with the C&R+COE combo.

Quote:

SEC. 7. Section 12318 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12318. (a) Commencing February 1, 2011, the delivery or transfer
of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face
transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide
evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee. A
violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to or affect the deliveries,
transfers, or sales of, handgun ammunition to any of the following:
(6) Persons licensed as collectors of firearms pursuant to Chapter
44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States
Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto whose licensed
premises are within this state who has a current certificate of
eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 12071.

yes, the FTF requirement does not apply to those with the C&R+COE combo.

I had to wait an entire hour and 3 minutes for this info???

Good Lord! A statutory cite, no less! Thanks so much. Now the trick will be getting the ammo vendors to understand that it's O.K. to ship to me. I'm thinking about trying to get the CA DOJ to issue me a letter to the same effect. By this I mean that I will write to them and ask them to confirm in writing that I am exempt from the ban. I will report my experience.

I think OSS actually stands for Office of Strategic Services. As in, the forerunner of the CIA. As in, a team of ninja commandos who sneak in and effortlessly kill the enemy by snapping their necks with a single savage twist.

Much thanks for the updates and elucidation. Small steps, many battles comprize the war. Remember the Quark, thanks to Gillory's 10 yr fight and Peterson. Members read all this stuff and apply yearly for CCW even if rebuked. It makes ongoing cases in your county look stronger. When they say "you will not get $ back if we deny you and the denial will be on your Dept of Justice record". They do not want a record of you even being there. We need a record of your denial. You have no rights if you don't vote. Your application is your vote. I've been applying for 15 yrs and now LAP is paying Michele and ***. to defend me. Molon Labe Marcus.

Re.: AB 962
I heard (from an ammo retailer) that this law cannot go into effect (Feb. 1, 2011) as long as there is litigation pending against it, is this true?
Thxs

__________________
Though defensive violence will always be “a sad necessity” in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. - St. Augustine

Re.: AB 962
I heard (from an ammo retailer) that this law cannot go into effect (Feb. 1, 2011) as long as there is litigation pending against it, is this true?
Thxs

We and others will be asking for a Preliminary Injunction to keep the interstate commerce aspects of it from going into effect.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

We and others will be asking for a Preliminary Injunction to keep the interstate commerce aspects of it from going into effect.

-Gene

Thank you, I'm no lawyer but that is the way I understood it also: the injuction must be ask for and granted, it is not automatic based on a lawsuit having been filed.

I'll watch for updates.

__________________
Though defensive violence will always be “a sad necessity” in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men. - St. Augustine

Thanks Quark, This thread is the most concise summary of various gun rights actions I have read. It makes it easy for us who don't do lawerspeak to understand where we're going and just enough about overall gun rights strategy (hopefully without tipping our hand) to keep the faith. Keep up the good work guys. And for you guys who are putting off making a calguns donation - just do it .

Great summary. I have a suggestion, please put "Assault Weapons" in quotes, as it's a made-up term without any actual basis in firearms terminology or history. "Assault Weapons" are an artifact of the gun prohibitionists' language and the first thing to do in court might be to show that "Assault Weapons" are no different in fact than any other rifle or handgun.

Stall-issue in Sacramento's case is having a panel with not enough members to be able to function.

It has been slow but people are still getting through. There are rumors of coming improvements in the speed of the process.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

Great summary. I have a suggestion, please put "Assault Weapons" in quotes, as it's a made-up term without any actual basis in firearms terminology or history. "Assault Weapons" are an artifact of the gun prohibitionists' language and the first thing to do in court might be to show that "Assault Weapons" are no different in fact than any other rifle or handgun.

Hitler, upon discovering that his subordinates had hidden a new rifle under the ordination of Machine Pistol 44 (MP44), and to his delight after personally testing it, he renamed the weapon the Strumgewher 44 (STG44) or "Assault Rifle 44". Much as he attached sirens to dive bombers to increase the fear factor, this name was purely intended to horrify the enemy. It is a real name, it has history, the Anti's didn't make it up, but they did steal it. An "Assault rifle" is an intermediate rifle with select fire capabilities, the anti's changed that terms to "anything that looks scary".

Funny, the Anti's have a lot in common with Hitler, Rule through fear, adopting his language, adopting his ideologies on whether the public has a right to keep and bear arms, since the public is second class compared to the rulers, the Facists have no problem taking guns away from their subjects... I don't think it would be a stretch to call the Brady's Facists as well (in a factual sense of the word).

Hitler, upon discovering that his subordinates had hidden a new rifle under the ordination of Machine Pistol 44 (MP44), and to his delight after personally testing it, he renamed the weapon the Strumgewher 44 (STG44) or "Assault Rifle 44". Much as he attached sirens to dive bombers to increase the fear factor, this name was purely intended to horrify the enemy. It is a real name, it has history, the Anti's didn't make it up, but they did steal it. An "Assault rifle" is an intermediate rifle with select fire capabilities, the anti's changed that terms to "anything that looks scary".

Funny, the Anti's have a lot in common with Hitler, Rule through fear, adopting his language, adopting his ideologies on whether the public has a right to keep and bear arms, since the public is second class compared to the rulers, the Facists have no problem taking guns away from their subjects... I don't think it would be a stretch to call the Brady's Facists as well (in a factual sense of the word).

You say tomayto, I say tomahto
You say potayto, I say potahto

But in this case, he said "assault weapon" and you said "assault rifle".

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon